The use of data cards or payment cards, such as credit cards, has gained widespread acceptance as a method of paying for goods and services. As used herein, the term "data card" will be generally used to signify such cards, which can include credit cards, debit cards, and other financial account cards. Data cards in use today typically include a magnetic stripe containing account and other information, and most often include an account number and other information in embossed or raised characters.
Two elements must be present before a credit card transaction can be completed successfully. First, the consumer or cardholder must possess a valid credit card. Second, the merchant must be authorized to accept the card as payment for the goods or services and to receive payment from the organization that issued the credit card. The card issuing organization subsequently receives payment from the cardholder.
Credit cards are issued by banks and other financial organizations, generally as members and under the regulations of a credit card issuing association or entity. VISA.RTM., MasterCard.RTM., DISCOVER CARD.RTM., and AMERICAN EXPRESS.RTM. are examples of credit card issuing associations or entities for particular brands of data cards. When a credit card is issued, the issuer is, in effect, granting a line of credit to the cardholder. Because the issuer is granting a line of credit, a credit card will be issued only after the issuer has conducted a credit background check and is satisfied as to the cardholder's ability and willingness to repay the debts incurred. The issuer's confidence is reflected in the amount of credit granted, which may range from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars.
Many data card transactions involve third-party credit card transaction processors in addition to the merchant and credit card issuer. Transaction processors, which are sometimes independent business institutions, provide merchants with data processing services that facilitate the flow of credit card transaction data and the corresponding payments of monies between the merchants and card issuers. The flow of transaction data from the merchant to the issuer via a transaction processor is commonly referred to as "processing" or "clearing" the transactions. The flow of money from the issuer to the merchant via a processor is known as "settlement". The term "transaction processor", as used herein, generally means a third-party institution that processes card transactions independently of a card issuer, but can also include card issuers and card issuing associations that process their own transactions.
In a typical credit card transaction, a card holder presents a credit card to a merchant, who records transaction data by using either an electronic terminal or a manually imprinted sales draft. The recorded data includes the amount of the purchase, the cardholder's account number, the card's expiration date, the merchant identification number, and the date of the transaction. In most cases, the cardholder is also required to sign a copy of the receipt.
At the end of each day, the merchant determines the total dollar volume of the credit card transactions completed and prepares a deposit slip indicating that amount. All of the transaction data is then transferred to the merchant's credit card transaction processor and entered into the transaction processor's computers. This transfer may be electronic, in which case a data capture terminal transfers the data directly to the processor's computer. Alternatively, the transfer may involve the deposit of imprinted paper sales drafts and subsequent entry of the data into the computers by the processor's data entry personnel.
Once the data is received by the transaction processor, the amount of the merchant's "deposit" is verified and recorded. At that point, the transactions are separated according to the type of credit card used to complete the transaction. The transaction processor then transfers the corresponding transaction data to the appropriate credit card issuer or card issuing association. After the data is transferred to the issuer, the issuer posts the individual transactions to the appropriate cardholder's account.
In most cases, settlement occurs very soon after the data is cleared. For example, after a transaction processor receives a merchant's daily transaction data, the balance due the merchant is calculated and paid to the merchant via check, direct deposit, or wire transfer. The transaction processor sorts the transaction data from all of its client merchants according to the type of card used and forwards that data to the appropriate card issuer. The issuer or card association then determines the balance due the transaction processor and transfers that amount to the transaction processor.
As a part of transaction settlement, transaction processors and issuers assess fees for processing the credit card transaction. These fees are commonly referred to as the "discount rate" and are usually calculated as a percentage of the face value of the credit card transaction. The issuer deducts its fee as percentage from the total amount due the transaction processor.
Although credit cards provide significant convenience for both cardholders and merchants, there are also well known risks associated with credit card transactions. The principal risk is loss resulting from fraudulent or unauthorized use of the credit card. In such a case, the goods or services are taken by the cardholder and are usually unrecoverable. The loss must then be absorbed by the merchant, credit card transaction processor, and/or the credit card issuer.
Over the years, card issuers and merchants have relied on several different methods to protect themselves from fraud or misuse and to verify the validity of a credit card before completing a transaction. Initially, the card issuers provided "warning bulletins" to merchants. Warning bulletins, which are still in widespread use, are booklets that list the account numbers of credit cards that should no longer be accepted. Account numbers are included on these lists if the card has been reported stolen, if the cardholder has exceeded his or her credit limit or has become delinquent in the payments to the issuer, or if a card should not be accepted for another reason (such as mistakenly issued cards and cards that are invalid outside their country of origin).
More recently, card issuers and card issuing associations have provided real-time access to their computerized databases. This allowed merchants to request telephonic authorization for a transaction based on a search of a continually updated database before completing each transaction. For a typical transaction authorization, the merchant obtains an "authorization code" the merchant obtains an authorization source or institution, often via telephone. Authorization sources include card issuing associations, card issuers themselves, as well as independent credit card transaction processors that also provide clearing and settlement services between merchants and card issuers.
Several different methods are currently used for obtaining authorizations. In one method, a merchant uses a telephone to call a phone number provided by an authorization source or institution; an operator associated with the authorization institution enters the transaction data into a computer and provides an authorization number or code to the merchant if the transaction is authorized. Some authorization institutions also provide a form of audio response unit (ARU) that responds to dual tone multiple frequency (DTMF) signals entered from a merchant's TOUCH-TONE.RTM. telephone. In this way, the merchant directly enters the numeric transaction data into a computer and receives an authorization number if the transaction is authorized.
Some transaction processors and card issuers provide electronic terminals that read the account number and expiration date from a magnetic stripe on the credit card. Once the merchant enters the purchase amount into the terminal, the terminal automatically dials an authorization source host computer and initiates an authorization request. The terminal displays and/or stores an approval code (authorization indicia) if the transaction is authorized. In each case, the approval code is recorded along with the other transaction data.
One particular difficulty that has been encountered in the use of prior an authorization systems is when a data card transaction terminal is unable to communicate with the authorization source, or when communications with the authorization source are interrupted. Such situations generally result in the merchant being forced to accept the risk of the transaction if the merchant decides to proceed with the transaction without receiving an authorization.
Another difficulty that often arises with known authorization systems is when a card issuer or card issuing association issues a "call me" in response to an authorization request. A "call me" or referral, as defined hereinbelow, typically results in a delay while the merchant places a telephone call to the entity issuing the "call me". Such delays cause inconvenience to the merchant and cardholder, and can result in a possible lost sale. Again, the merchant is at risk if the merchant decides to proceed with the transaction without contacting the authorization source and/or receiving authorization for the transaction.
Current manual systems for handling "call me" responses and referrals are therefore in need of improvement. Moreover, the inability of present systems to handle the interruption or failure to establish communications with authorization sources is in need of correction.
In order to insure that authorization is received and that all transaction data is properly recorded, card issuing associations have established a variety of operating regulations. These regulations include procedures for handling and present transactions for payment by the card issuing institution. If the merchant does not comply with the regulations and/or procedures, the transaction may be "charged back" to the merchant, who would then bear the loss associated with that sale.
A "chargeback" occurs when a credit card issuing association refuses to honor a presentment of a processed transaction because the issuer believes it violates a specific operating regulation. The chargeback results in reversal of the transaction to the transaction processor or merchant. Some transaction processors provide research services on behalf of their customers/merchants in an effort to resolve the dispute to the benefit of the merchant and re-present the transaction to the issuer for payment. Chargebacks are allowed only under specific conditions as provided in the association's operating regulations, and can be resolved or reversed only under specified conditions.
Chargebacks generally are of two basic types. A first comprises situations or disputes originating with a card issuer or card issuing association alleging improper or incomplete transaction procedures. A second comprises complaints originating with a cardholder regarding the origin of the transaction or the quality of the goods or services received.
Disputes regarding transaction procedures can be further classified to include authorization-related disputes, retrieval-related disputes, and transaction data disputes. Authorization related disputes are usually initiated by the card issuer when the credit card account is in a delinquent, over limit, or otherwise allegedly uncollectible condition, and the issuer cannot locate a record indicating that the transaction was authorized. The premise for the dispute is that the issuer claims the transaction would not have been authorized if the merchant had properly sought authorization at the time of the transaction.
Retrieval-related disputes can be initiated by a cardholder or by a card issuer. These disputes commonly arise when a cardholder sees an unfamiliar transaction posted to his or her account. At that point, the cardholder is entitled to request, through the issuer, a copy of the paper documentation supporting the transaction. In other situations, the card issuer may request copies to aid in its research of disputes or fraud. Such requests are called "retrieval requests." Once the cardholder or issuer properly requests a copy of the documentation, the transaction may be charged back to the transaction processor or merchant if the requested documentation is not provided within a prescribed time limit. A transaction can also be charged back when the copy of the transaction provided is of poor quality or legibility, or does not include the minimum information required by the card issuer's regulations.
Transaction data disputes typically occur when there are problems associated with the cardholder's account number, the amount of the purchase, the signature, the date of the transaction, the validity of the card on the date of the transaction, etc. Such problems may occur when any of the above data are improperly entered or illegible. These disputes are commonly referred to as "technical" disputes or chargebacks, since they are based on errors in merchant procedures or in the entry of the data.
Cardholder disputes occur when the cardholder denies participation in the transaction, or where the cardholder is dissatisfied with the merchandise or services purchased. In these cases, federal laws provide a cardholder with certain consumer rights. Cardholder disputes may also include claims that a single transaction was processed more than one time, that a credit issued by the merchant to the cardholder was not processed, or that the cardholder had revoked a merchant's authority to charge his account.
In each of the above situations, the transaction may be re-presented to the issuer and the chargeback reversed if the transaction processor and/or merchant are able to provide data that refutes or disproves the chargeback and substantiates the transaction. As a result, the process of reversing a chargeback typically requires research and/or retrieval of transaction data on the part of the processor and/or merchant. In some cases, the issuer's operating regulations require that copies of the sales drafts be retained by the merchant for three years from the date of the transaction. In addition, the regulations typically impose fairly strict time limits for responding to retrieval requests or chargeback notices. As a result, a retrieval or chargeback notice may require a merchant to sort through a very large number of archived paper receipts in order to locate the receipt in question and provide the information necessary to comply with the issuer's request.
In recent years, several devices and services have been created in order to simplify the storage and retrieval of transaction data, and to reduce the likelihood of authorization-related and technical chargebacks by insuring the accuracy of the recorded transaction data. So-called electronic "data capture" data card transaction terminals electronically detect and decode the cardholder's account number and expiration date from the magnetic stripe, and receive a purchase amount from a keypad. Once the data is entered in this fashion, it is used to print a receipt and is electronically transmitted to a transaction processor.
The use of data capture terminals has helped eliminate keying errors and insures that the data recorded on a cardholder's receipt is the same data used to process and settle the transaction. However, even when data capture devices are used, the merchant still must keep paper copies of the receipts for up to three years and comply with any retrieval requests.
Some third party credit card transaction processors market their authorization, processing, and settlement services to merchants in conjunction with a "chargeback defense system" of some sort. The chargeback defense systems promoted by some processors include a review of chargebacks against the operating regulations promulgated by card issuing associations. In addition, some transaction processors maintain databases of transaction information that allow the processor to obtain reversal of certain types of chargebacks on behalf of its customers/merchants. For example, if an issuer refuses to honor a transaction because it is unable to locate an authorization record, the processor may be able to reverse the chargeback without involving the merchant by providing the missing record of authorization to the issuer.
Although transaction processors often attempt to reverse chargebacks without the involvement of the merchant, certain retrieval requests or chargeback regulations still require that the merchant be involved in order to provide a copy of a receipt or reply to a dispute regarding the quality of the goods or services received by the cardholder. Accordingly, merchants must still maintain voluminous paper records of transactions for many years, resulting in inconvenience and expense when these paper records must be searched in order to respond to a retrieval request or a chargeback situation.
It is possible that data card transactions where a card is physically presented by a card holder to a merchant and the account number is electronically obtained are more likely to be valid transactions of the card holder than transactions where the account number was manually entered at a keyboard. If it were possible to compare and verify the account number, expiration date, or other information obtained from reading the magnetic stripe of a data card against another source of information associated with the card (such as the embossed characters on the data card or a second track of information on the magnetic stripe), it would be even easier to verify that a card was physically present for the transaction. It would then be possible to provide credit card issuers and/or transaction processors with greater assurance that a data card was indeed physically present at a transaction terminal on a given date in connection with a given transaction. Such greater assurances could therefore provide an incentive to a transaction processor or other entity to guarantee such transactions and make them "chargeback protected" for the merchant.
In addition, requirements for storage of paper receipts generated in connection with data card transactions could be reduced or possibly eliminated if the information essential to verifying a transaction could be obtained and stored electronically. In many cases, the signature of a card holder is a key piece of information that reminds the card holder that he or she actually participated in a particular transaction, or helps the card holder ascertain that the signature is a forgery. If signatures associated with data card transactions could be electronically captured, stored, and associated with other transaction data, and such information could be readily retrieved upon request, it might be possible to eliminate the requirement for retention of signature-bearing paper transaction receipts.
Graphic digitizer devices enable provision and storage, as electronic signals, of the X and Y coordinates of a stylus relative to a tablet or other surface. Examples of such devices are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,689,448, 4,705,919, and 4,77 1,138. It is possible with such devices, coupled to a computer system, to electronically capture and store a signature as an array of digital signals in a computer memory. However, because a signature is essentially a graphic object bounded in two-dimensional space by a rectangle enclosing the signature, it takes many digital signals to represent and store the signature electronically. Such a large volume of digital signals takes a long time to communicate electronically and consumes large amounts of memory for storage. The data storage requirements and corresponding signal transmission time of the data representing a digitized full signature have presented significant technical challenges to practical signature capture at data card terminals and concurrent transmission of the signature signals via telecommunication links to the host computer systems of transaction processors.
Apparatus for identifying cards based on embossing imparted to the surface of the card are known in the art. U.S. Pat. No. 4,783,823 of Tasaki et al. describes a device including an embossment sensor or detector that is adapted to contact with the upper surface of a card for thereby producing a signal representative of the result of the detection. A memory associated with the card is loaded with pattern data corresponding to the pattern defined by the embossment. When the card is inserted into the reader, the card is apparently moved past a linear array of sensors, and a circuit operates to read out identification data (pattern data) from the card's memory and determine that the inserted card is the authorized one when the identification data read from the memory coincides with the information (pattern) carried by the embossed area formed in the card and read by the embossment detector.
The Tasaki et al. patent provides little useful information as to how the pattern detection is actually accomplished. It appears that the device merely detects a simple geometric pattern of raised areas embossed on the card instead of embossed characters, since there is no discussion that the pattern is encoded with information such as account number, name, expiration date, or the like. Moreover, the movement of the card past the linear array of sensors requires a special mechanism to move and handle the card. It would be more useful and efficient in data card applications if the embossed character region, which in credit cards contains name, account number, expiration date, etc., could be read and decoded to obtain the information encoded therein, without a complex card moving mechanism.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,055,838 describes a capacitive silicon tactile imaging array comprising a matrix of sensors and a method of making same. Such devices might be employed for taking an electronic "picture" of the embossed character regions provided on many current data cards; this picture conceivably could be used in verifying the account information provided in the magnetic stripe of the data card. However, such an electronic "picture" requires many digital signals to represent, resulting in large memory storage requirements and processing delays to handle the large amounts of data. In addition, it is a non-trivial problem to adapt a matrix sensor for making such an electronic picture of the embossed area of a card and accurately determining, with a computer or other electronics, what characters are present in the embossing on the card.
Accordingly, although attempts have been made to simplify the process of storing and retrieving data in connection with retrieval requests and chargebacks, and in detecting the authenticity of data cards, there are still needs for substantial improvements in facilitating data card transactions. There is still need for improved systems and methods that simplify the storage, transmission, and retrieval of transaction data associated with data card transactions, including the signature, in a manner that automatically insures compliance with the operating procedures promulgated by the card issuing associations.
In addition, there are needs for improved systems enabling provision of transaction chargeback protection in favor of merchants that assures the merchant that the operating procedures of card issuing associations have been complied with, that all relevant data for receiving chargeback protection for a given transaction has been properly obtained, stored, and transmitted to a transaction processor, and that the risk of receiving a technical, authorization-related, or retrieval-related chargeback resulting from a given transaction has been transferred to the transaction processor.